Clearly there are some other factors at work here, unless Walmart just wants to give the government money. Try and name them and what you think they cost Walmart.

Up until recently (I don't know if this has changed), but most companies offered health insurance to full time employees (loosely defined as employees averaging over 28 hours per week). Personal sick days. Paid holidays. 401k or similar program(s).

Guy, something is wrong big time. "Walmart workers, as a group, are the largest food stamp recipients in the country totaling $2.66 billion annually. That’s right, Walmart, a company that makes more than $400,000,000,000 a year is taking more than $2,660,000,000 out of tax payers pockets annually because they have refused to pay their workers a living wage. Not only has Walmart callously expected the taxpayers to pick up the slack, but the government has allowed them to get away with it! In fact, reports say Walmart has direct knowledge of this and directly assist employees in applications for both food stamps and Medicaid." Hayleys Comments

Ah, more cow pies.

What is the rate of pay? Is that a living wage? Could it have something to do with the minimum, er recommended, wage law?

Now why doesn't Walmart hire them for a 40 hour week? A much more interesting question. "the government has allowed them to get away with it!" er, the Government forces them to do it. But until you know why they don't have 40 hour work weeks, you will never see it. Once you see it from Walmarts' side of the fence, you blood will boil at the Government.

Gary,
Yep, you have hit at the heart of the problem.

Everyone,

A business is only going to pay an employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business. The business exists, after all, to make a profit. The more regulation and taxes on a business, the smaller a slice of the per worker profit the business can afford to pay the worker. When that slice becomes less than the government mandated 'minimum wage', the worker doesn't get hired.

I don't know the specifics of WalMart at the moment, but another company has been in the news of late about just this issue. Google 'Darden restaurants part time'. Everyone from The HuffPo to Fox Business has stories on it. Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and others) isn't going to be hiring full time workers. It is starting in a few markets but will likely expand soon. The reason?

Part time workers get fewer (if any) benefits...

And

The ACA (Obamacare).

They don't have to provide health insurance on part time workers. A lot of businesses are planning to ditch employee health care and pay the penalty. The per-employee penalty is cheaper than the per-employee cost of a health plan. Now Darden has found a way to avoid the penalty too. Good for them!

You want to boost our competitiveness? One can start by getting rid of the BS regulations that tie business' hands. Let Government get out of the way of business, and US Business might just surprise ya.

Gary, in talking to many company reps over the years I get the impression that they are much friendlier to deal with than Walmart. The local Costco is not union, my state is not a right to work state, and yet they pay very well for retail.
____________

Guy, something is wrong big time. "Walmart workers, as a group, are the largest food stamp recipients in the country totaling $2.66 billion annually. That’s right, Walmart, a company that makes more than $400,000,000,000 a year is taking more than $2,660,000,000 out of tax payers pockets annually because they have refused to pay their workers a living wage. Not only has Walmart callously expected the taxpayers to pick up the slack, but the government has allowed them to get away with it! In fact, reports say Walmart has direct knowledge of this and directly assist employees in applications for both food stamps and Medicaid." Hayleys Comments

Ah, more cow pies.

What is the rate of pay? Is that a living wage? Could it have something to do with the minimum, er recommended, wage law?

Now why doesn't Walmart hire them for a 40 hour week? A much more interesting question. "the government has allowed them to get away with it!" er, the Government forces them to do it. But until you know why they don't have 40 hour work weeks, you will never see it. Once you see it from Walmarts' side of the fence, you blood will boil at the Government.

Gary,
Yep, you have hit at the heart of the problem.

Everyone,

A business is only going to pay an employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business. The business exists, after all, to make a profit. The more regulation and taxes on a business, the smaller a slice of the per worker profit the business can afford to pay the worker. When that slice becomes less than the government mandated 'minimum wage', the worker doesn't get hired.

I don't know the specifics of WalMart at the moment, but another company has been in the news of late about just this issue. Google 'Darden restaurants part time'. Everyone from The HuffPo to Fox Business has stories on it. Darden Restaurants (Red Lobster, Olive Garden, and others) isn't going to be hiring full time workers. It is starting in a few markets but will likely expand soon. The reason?

Part time workers get fewer (if any) benefits...

And

The ACA (Obamacare).

They don't have to provide health insurance on part time workers. A lot of businesses are planning to ditch employee health care and pay the penalty. The per-employee penalty is cheaper than the per-employee cost of a health plan. Now Darden has found a way to avoid the penalty too. Good for them!

You want to boost our competitiveness? One can start by getting rid of the BS regulations that tie business' hands. Let Government get out of the way of business, and US Business might just surprise ya.

But you've just said that business won't pay benefits and a decent wage unless forced to do so.

Surely we need to have employment protection for part-time workers as well as full time workers like they do in Europe?
____________Reality Internet Personality

It is starting in a few markets but will likely expand soon. The reason?

Part time workers get fewer (if any) benefits...

And

The ACA (Obamacare).

They don't have to provide health insurance on part time workers.

So then I was right... benefits and healthcare are both what I mentioned earlier.

The ACA is brand new, obviously this has been going on for some time.

As to benefits a company need not have any for full time workers unless the government mandates something. The government pre-ACA did not require health care. However it does mandate other things. Go look at the poster on the wall where you work. Here is one section.

Suppose I were to suggest to you I was one who has always thought of my future and made decision earlier in my life to prepare for later in life? Suppose I were to suggest to you that because of my sacrifices earlier in life, because I chose to work instead of going out and partying on Friday night, I now have a little more than many?

And now suppose I told you that just because you did that, it was not a guarantee of success, and there exist people who also did the same/similar who are not reaping those benefits. Suppose I told you a little thing called "chance" exists, no matter how much a certain poster likes to deny that. Suppose I remind you and others, again and again and again that we are not the sums of ourselves and our efforts. Our environment undoubtedly influences us.

Gary, in talking to many company reps over the years I get the impression that they are much friendlier to deal with than Walmart. The local Costco is not union, my state is not a right to work state, and yet they pay very well for retail.

You can still ask for a lower price than last order and not be a jerk doing it.

As for Union or not, the Costco I go to is a former Price Club, and Price Club was union when they merged with Costco. I suspect that has rubbed off onto Costco and they offer the same across the board as a matter of course.

A good example to study might be Fedco. Fedco no longer exists. Got squeezed out as they couldn't quite beat Walmart / Target and they didn't have the advantage Costco / Price Club had in customers.

But you've just said that business won't pay benefits and a decent wage unless forced to do so.

Surely we need to have employment protection for part-time workers as well as full time workers like they do in Europe?

Uhh... No. That is the exact opposite of my point.

Es, we have not always gotten along, so lets please try to be civil now, ok?

Ok, 'benefits' (esp. health insurance through the employer) began as a way to increase compensation to workers without running afoul of certain legalities (namely income tax and certain wartime wage freezes). Being legal dodges, benefits need to stop.

A decent wage? Define decent in this context. Remember, a business can only pay a(n) (prospective) employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business, or else they will either not hire, fire the employee, or go bankrupt/out of business (depending on the exact circumstances.

If a person cannot earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, they are not employable. If a person can only earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, then that is it.

If a person does not earn enough to make ends meet, then they have a range of choices. They can tighten their belts, if possible, and live on a lower standard of living. Or, they can work more hours, if possible (overtime or a 2nd job). Or, they can improve themselves (university or a trade school) and pick up a skill that is worth more to employers. Or, well... there is charity if nothing else is possible.

The answer is not 'more regulation and taxes'. The answer is less regulation and taxes. A LOT less. Let the government get out of the way and let business do its thing. Prices will adjust so stuff would be affordable again. Sooner or later.

Major -- I'd suggest that *your* answer is less taxes and less government.

For many, that may be precisely what we need -- something of an oligarchy perhaps.

For many, that may be precisely not what we need.

Your mileage (and vantage point) may vary. I'm objecting to the characterization of your view as THE answer. I've seen a lot of 'THE' answer 'opinions masquerading as Truth with a capital T' over the past few years. It irks me.

A decent wage? Define decent in this context. Remember, a business can only pay a(n) (prospective) employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business, or else they will either not hire, fire the employee, or go bankrupt/out of business (depending on the exact circumstances.

If a person cannot earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, they are not employable. If a person can only earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, then that is it.

If a person does not earn enough to make ends meet, then they have a range of choices. They can tighten their belts, if possible, and live on a lower standard of living. Or, they can work more hours, if possible (overtime or a 2nd job). Or, they can improve themselves (university or a trade school) and pick up a skill that is worth more to employers. Or, well... there is charity if nothing else is possible.

The answer is not 'more regulation and taxes'. The answer is less regulation and taxes. A LOT less. Let the government get out of the way and let business do its thing. Prices will adjust so stuff would be affordable again. Sooner or later.

Major, can you point out a country that adheres to the Ayn Rand utopia you desire?
____________

A decent wage? Define decent in this context. Remember, a business can only pay a(n) (prospective) employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business, or else they will either not hire, fire the employee, or go bankrupt/out of business (depending on the exact circumstances.

If a person cannot earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, they are not employable. If a person can only earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, then that is it.

If a person does not earn enough to make ends meet, then they have a range of choices. They can tighten their belts, if possible, and live on a lower standard of living. Or, they can work more hours, if possible (overtime or a 2nd job). Or, they can improve themselves (university or a trade school) and pick up a skill that is worth more to employers. Or, well... there is charity if nothing else is possible.

The answer is not 'more regulation and taxes'. The answer is less regulation and taxes. A LOT less. Let the government get out of the way and let business do its thing. Prices will adjust so stuff would be affordable again. Sooner or later.

Major, can you point out a country that adheres to the Ayn Rand utopia you desire?

A decent wage? Define decent in this context. Remember, a business can only pay a(n) (prospective) employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business, or else they will either not hire, fire the employee, or go bankrupt/out of business (depending on the exact circumstances.

If a person cannot earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, they are not employable. If a person can only earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, then that is it.

If a person does not earn enough to make ends meet, then they have a range of choices. They can tighten their belts, if possible, and live on a lower standard of living. Or, they can work more hours, if possible (overtime or a 2nd job). Or, they can improve themselves (university or a trade school) and pick up a skill that is worth more to employers. Or, well... there is charity if nothing else is possible.

The answer is not 'more regulation and taxes'. The answer is less regulation and taxes. A LOT less. Let the government get out of the way and let business do its thing. Prices will adjust so stuff would be affordable again. Sooner or later.

Major, can you point out a country that adheres to the Ayn Rand utopia you desire?

My thoughts exactly.

Anyways, if we look back to the US's golden years (mid 40s- early 70s, give or take a few), this was not accomplished in any way by allowing a totally free market. This was accomplished with the right combination of free market, taxation, and regulation.

Somewhere in the 80's a guy came along and was elected, and he opened the floodgates. It's all been downhill since, no matter how great people thought it/he was.

I don't think heading further in that direction is any answer to the problem.
____________-Dave#2

In 1988, libertarian political writer Sheldon Richman described TEFRA as "the largest tax increase in American history." In 2003, former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett wrote in National Review that "TEFRA raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year", elaborating, "according to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history."

I don't think heading further in that direction is any answer to the problem.

A decent wage? Define decent in this context. Remember, a business can only pay a(n) (prospective) employee a portion of the profit the employee earns for the business, or else they will either not hire, fire the employee, or go bankrupt/out of business (depending on the exact circumstances.

If a person cannot earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, they are not employable. If a person can only earn enough for an employer to justify minimum wage, then that is it.

If a person does not earn enough to make ends meet, then they have a range of choices. They can tighten their belts, if possible, and live on a lower standard of living. Or, they can work more hours, if possible (overtime or a 2nd job). Or, they can improve themselves (university or a trade school) and pick up a skill that is worth more to employers. Or, well... there is charity if nothing else is possible.

The answer is not 'more regulation and taxes'. The answer is less regulation and taxes. A LOT less. Let the government get out of the way and let business do its thing. Prices will adjust so stuff would be affordable again. Sooner or later.

Major, can you point out a country that adheres to the Ayn Rand utopia you desire?